I was referring to both the original post, and Xe's older post that this comment thread is about. They both list claims made by V and describe details how they tested those claims and what their results were.
Do you have anything more legit because these posts have nonsense like "setting array length on creation is a terrible idea" (Go with its `make([]int, 5)` must be a terrible scam language as well) and measuring the performance of a debug build, with slow backend, without vlib cached, and with vfmt on.
You can see that V is actually as fast as is claimed on the website:
I tried to find the source of the "V has to die" comment, and I see that you linked this in a previous claim that Xe said "V should die": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27442724
Actual quote from this comment:
Personally I think it is something that should be ignored until it dies into obscurity
There are good ideas there, but if you sell someone the moon and give them a block of cheese that's kind of a scam
This is definitely not "has to die". This is "should be ignored" and a prediction that V will die, justified by disappointment at the large gap between their interpretation of V's marketing vs the reality of the current state of V.
You've misunderstood my intent. In "I checked several notable claims, and most of them are false", I was trying to say that most of the notable claims that the author decided to check were false.
This is very different from saying most of the statements on the website are false, which would be a completely absurd accusation, as you correctly point out.
My comment was refuting that these posts are not "frothing at the chance to disparage this language and it's author". I stand by my refutation that these posts are appropriate, specific, relevant criticism, and that they cite specific evidence for their specific disagreements with the stated claims.
You are certainly welcome to disagree with this author's claims! That sounds like appropriate, specific, relevant criticism of this author's claim. Would you say that you are "frothing at the chance to disparage this author"? I don't.
I'll admit to some satire in my top comment on this subthread. By saying "It's because of all the lying", I was partly satirically reacting to what I saw as inappropriate hyperbole in "frothing at the mouth to disparage". I broadly agree that the V website is fine, just a little distasteful by my aesthetic.
If you think it's fine for V documentation and advocacy to overstate their case and not mention significant gaps in what they claim the language has, I can't see how you'd call it inappropriate for other people who care about the production-suitability of a language to explicitly document what they believe to be major gaps in the production-readiness of a language claiming to have important safety features people want to rely on.
For some context on my interpretation of these posts, I think about how many times over my career I've had to deal with software that claims to have "just a few bugs" on something important, but somehow the bugs never actually get fixed, and the fully general solution just never appears. These things really are genuinely difficult to design and build a fully general solution for. It takes time and engineering work, as we can see by these people finding a lot of holes as soon as they looked.
As an engineer, I've had a lot of frustration from dealing with bugs and outages and maintenance issues that can be significantly improved by a good language. That's why I care so much about really wanting these things that V claims to have, and also why I care so much about the details of how exactly the claims currently fall short. It's so easy to overpromise, so I'm skeptical of any marketing for a new still-in-development tool that just claims to have solutions, with no big disclaimers about how they're still incomplete.
Regarding your specific example, the problem that's being implied by the "setting array length on creation is a terrible idea" is that every time you're setting an array length in V, any mistake will not be caught by the compiler, and can be an exploitable memory safety violation. Memory safety vulnerabilities really truly have been and continue to be a serious ongoing source of serious computer security problems. V making various memory safety claims like no null and no reading from uninitialized memory, and then that being trivially broken on literally the most obvious possible violation, without even any safety marker to make sure it's obvious that this is a place where you can violate memory safety, means that it's just not a language I want to use.
I agree that these posts are very passionate. I assert that these posts come from a passionate interest in what V aspires to be, and they hold V to a high standard, and find it believable that V can actually hit that high standard, and so they've checked it, and here are the places where you'll need to be extremely careful if you want to really rely on this in a high-reliability setting. It is not frothing at the mouth, and it is not disparagement; it is accurate and precise and specific and appropriate feedback, along with some emotional expression that I find relatable and appropriate.
Tene’s post is the most reasonable and valuable feedback you’ve gotten in this entire thread. Your reply should have been one of thanks and appreciation, not confrontational and argumentative.
Honestly, from the outside reading this thread you probably shouldn’t have come here in the first place. I get you want to defend your language, but there’s a fine line between defending your creation and being argumentative with people who don’t actually mean you harm, and who aren’t trying to take you down.
Your posts here are very defensive, and your tone is argumentative to the point when someone gave you accurate info about using tcc, you refused to believe it and argued about it for several posts. Just listen instead of arguing.
Look, I get you want to defend your creation. But my advice from one lang dev to another is stop posting on hn, and do what you’re good at by working on making your claims about your language bulletproof instead. People have been giving you this advice since you started V years ago but you haven’t taken it. Let V speak for itself. Stop arguing with people on the internet.
If you accidentally make a mistake when setting an array length in V, your program can read from uninitialized memory, as discussed in this article. This program, quoted from the article we're discussing, is accepted by the V compiler, and attempts to read from uninitialized memory:
In this case, the program crashes with a segfault, because the program is simple enough that the memory after the heap allocation was not mapped. The point of these examples is to be minimal tests cases clearly demonstrating that the language does the wrong thing. This is a general category of bug that permits memory unsafety, and in more-complex real-world programs, this could be exploitable. In general, any time you see a segfault, it's a strong signal that there could be an exploitable memory safety vulnerability.
This does not apply to every other language. The specific problem is that V lets you directly adjust the array length without doing anything to ensure that the array capacity is at least as large as the newly-specified length. Go's `make([]int, len)` ensures that the produced array's capacity is at least len. Go does have some memory safety issues (data races), but this specific issue is not a problem that Go has.
> Can you link to such examples in V documentation?
I agree with the article we're discussing that the "Safety" section prominently displayed on https://vlang.io/ immediately after the header is significantly overstating its case. Here is the list, each item of which is discussed specifically in this blog post, with minimal source code you can run to check their work:
- No null
- No undefined values
- No undefined behavior
- No variable shadowing
- Bounds checking
- Immutable variables by default
- Immutable structs by default
- Pure functions by default -- This has since been removed from the list, but was present when the author started this review: https://web.archive.org/web/20220305171852/https://vlang.io/
- Option/Result and mandatory error checks
- Sum types
- Generics
- Immutable function args by default, mutable args have to be marked on call
- No global variables
"No Null" is misleading because the compiler does not actually prevent null references.
"No Undefined Values" is misleading because the compiler does not actually prevent reading uninitialized memory.
"No Undefined Behaviour" is misleading because the C code generated by the V compiler does include behaviour that is undefined according to the C language standard.
"No Variable Shadowing" is correct; the V compiler rejects programs that would shadow variables. I don't actually see this as a benefit, as I use shadowing all the time, but it's an accurate statement about the current V compiler.
"Bounds Checking" is mostly correct, but slightly misleading because the bounds are exposed to your code, and it's up to you to make sure you manipulate them correctly.
"Immutable variables by default" and the other immutability points are misleading because functions that accept immutable arguments can still mutate those arguments.
Compared to languages with real mutability tracking, this is far less helpful in designing misuse-resistant APIs, and avoiding hard-to-diagnose bugs caused by unexpected mutation.
"Pure functions by default" is misleading because the V developer has chosen to use their own special nonstandard meaning for "Pure" that includes IO, and because of the mutability tracking not actually being effective.
"Option/Result and mandatory error checks" is correct and fine; I have no problems with this.
"Sum Types" is kind of okay, but they look kinda janky and limited. This article's example of sum types not being able to hold references is pretty concerning.
"Generics" is kind of okay, but it similarly is a very early very limited implementation.
"No global variables" is just false. V has "constants", which are just "immutable" global variables, and as we've already seen, V's "immutability" is very mutable.
This blog post also addresses the "Performance", "Fast Compilation", and "Innovative memory management" sections of https://vlang.io/.
Broadly speaking, https://vlang.io/ seems to very clearly present the language as one that is suitable for use today. I don't see anything on the main page of https://vlang.io/ that says anything even vaguely similar to "This is a very early language, these features are aspirational but still very much under serious development, and there are many known gaps we have not built solutions to yet".
By my personal standards of epistemic integrity, the front page of https://vlang.io/ is misleading and dishonest. I recognize that many people consider this kind of "marketing" to be acceptable, and I'm fine with letting people do that as long as they're not complaining about people actually checking their claims.
I really love the ambition of V, and I would be very happy to use it if it were actually production-ready. I have sometimes used early-development tools in production when I've had a good understanding of what the actual gaps and deficiencies and defects in the under-development software are. V's aggressive marketing that goes out of its way to avoid discussing its weaknesses means that I can't actually rely on what I read from them about the language's suitability for high-reliability use. When someone shows me that they're happy and willing and eager to mislead people about the flaws in something, then I believe them!
To me, these posts seem to be written from a perspective of eagerly wanting to use the language that seems to be advertised, and being disappointed at the big gap between the marketing and reality. The two big messages I see in these blog posts are "Here are problems I found that make me concerned about using V" and also, separately, "V appears to be marketed as if it were a polished product suitable for production use, and that's concerning, given the problems found."
Notice the end of this post: "At this time, I would not recommend spending time on V. I would also be very cautious when taking claims made by the authors at face value."
This author explicitly says "At this time" they don't think V is suitable to rely on or will be soon, and they encourage skepticism when interpreting claims made by the author. This does not read at all like someone hateful to me. This very much reads like someone who really wants a production-quality V language to use, and hopes that the project someday succeeds.
> The specific problem is that V lets you directly adjust the array length without doing anything to ensure that the array capacity is at least as large as the newly-specified length.
I strongly disagree with you about the intent of the OP. I'm not saying you don't have other valid points, but want to focus on this particular aspect of your post. I think it's important to not assign benevolence, to what is possible malevolence. Why?
1) It is the author of the blog, that also created this thread on HN.
It shows the intent to disseminate his negative review as far and as wide as possible. And to do so outside of the V community.
2) If the OP was as eager to use the language as you believe, and was disappointed, he could have brought those issues to the V GitHub.
Who is going to the fix those issues that the OP (or anyone else) believes is a problem? It is going to be the V developers. So if the OP wanted those things that he believes are a problem fixed, that's who he has to bring them to.
Just outright mounting a smear campaign or crapping on the V language wherever possible, will never get any of the issues fixed on its own. Instead, as has been shown (by other places linking to the OP's blog), it will only invite more smearing and attacks.
3) The OP starts the review by linking to a number of very contentious posts from competitors and detractors of V, to include those that smear the author and language.
To do such will clearly set off drama, and makes the negative review part of the past drama. It now links them all together. This is not the intent of a person that wishes to "come in peace" or be helpful, this comes across as one having the purpose to set off a blazing fire of more drama.
4) The OP has shown no interest in working with V developers, and that's prior to publishing the review and spreading links to it.
The OP has demonstrated no intent to modify his review for correctness, fairness, or language version. This then puts "at this time", in the context that the review can stay as it is, indefinitely, regardless.
Add to that, the OP is purposely using a throwaway account on GitHub. He simply can disappear, without ever making changes to the review. We all know who the creator of V is and a number of its developers, they are all held accountable, as you are trying to do now. The OP on the other hand, has no accountability nor any "skin in the game".
5) The OP's review is without the necessary context and highly opinionated.
Without feedback or the opinions of the V developers, this is a one-sided negative review full of many debatable points about the claims made. The many gray areas can only gain context, when compared with what the V developers are showing their intentions are and in their responses to what are believed to be issues.
For more clarity at what I'm getting at, I'm not saying there are no issues with various claims or marketing, but rather what is claimed can be a matter of opinion. Because a person or reviewer disagrees with a claim, does not make them or their review 100% right either. Readers are left with a situation as to what percentage of either side is correct.
And no matter at what percentage either side is correct, who is going to fix any discovered issues? Right, it will be the V developers. So if the point was not to do any harm and help create production-quality V, then that's who needed/needs to be informed and worked with. If the OP is not interested in working with V developers, and rather produce and disseminate drama or facilitate smearing, then that's a reflection of their real intent.
Okay so do something about it. It’s been over 3 days since the blog post was written and all you’ve done since then is mount the same complaints here about how unfair the blog was.
Go write your own blog post. Submit it to hn. Refute all the points in the blog with evidence and code. Then we can have a follow up discussion with more substance.
At this point, you’ve made your position clear and you’re talking in circles. The way you combat a negative story is with a positive story. Whining about how unfair everyone is being to your favorite new language is a perfect way to limit its growth.
As such a small community, your personal behavior on public forums defines the tone of the entire V community for outsiders. You should critically analyze your posts here and ask yourself if they leave the impression of a community people would want to join.
I'm not here to speak for all members of the V community, as it appears your are trying to pigeonhole me as doing, for your narrative. My personal opinions are in no way reflective of their entire community.
It also appears you prefer to see negative opinions or commentary about V, and are getting overly upset or obsessed with those you believe are defending the language in any way. I'm simply responding to a thread on HN (as you are), that was not made by me, and calling out things that I see or believe to be unfair.
The V community has open discussions that anybody can join and make comments on. You can also freely create an appropriate discussion at the V GitHub. This is something that it appears you don't know about (and what the OP purposely avoided), as you're "talking in circles" with me and giving your opinions about "whining". The link to it is below.
You are free to go there and submit your many opinions about what the members of the V community should or should not be doing. Even better, as you seem to describe yourself as very technical and knowledgeable. You would be commenting directly to them. In general, they are very receptive, open, and friendly.
> My personal opinions are in no way reflective of their entire community.
Unfortunately for you, the V community is small and you tend to come here on HN, so you are who we see as an ambassador for V. You are a defacto representative of the community even if you do t see yourself as such. The way you comport yourself here reflects on the entire community. Fair? No. But if you read the comments here and in other threads, you’re definitely leaving an impression as to the entire V community.
> You are free to go there and submit your many opinions about what the members of the V community should or should not be doing.
I don’t have many opinions, I have one opinion and I have given it to you. Stop arguing on the internet and just make your claims bulletproof.
There is no "we", everybody on here does not think as you do. Better to clearly speak for yourself.
> ...defacto representative of the community...
If you bothered to read and pay attention, the creator of V posted on this thread. This includes other V contributors (that debated some technical points), and long time proud paying supporters of V (who have identified themselves as such).
I have also clearly (and now repeatedly) told you that I'm not the V community nor do my personal opinions represent them. I'm expressing my opinions on HN, as you are, which refer to the actions of the OP and the topic of this thread. Anybody with common sense should understand that. Stop being so upset that there are people with different opinions about V and are supportive, not everybody gets off on smearing others or clings to negativity.
> ...make your claims bulletproof
It is not my position nor place to make any claims bulletproof, in reference to V, to your personal satisfaction. If anybody wants to actually address the V community, and tell them their opinions about what they could be doing or share their technical knowledgeable on the subject, then instead of just trying to argue me down specifically, they can go over to where they are at (V Github or discord).
It's because of all the lying. The author keeps claiming that their language has features that it definitely does not have.
Why do so many people consider "I checked several notable claims, and most of them are false" to be some kind of hateful disparaging attack?